Theology in the Raw - Bonus Q&A - Preview (July)

Episode Date: July 23, 2025

Subscribe to Theology in the Raw on Patreon to instantly unlock this full Bonus Q&A. You’ll also have access to a huge archive of bonus episodes, Extra Innings, and free video content from the Exiles in Babylon archives. Here’s the questions you’ll find when you unlock the full episode!* Huldah interpreted Scripture for men and was sanctioned by God as a prophet to do so. Does that role for women change in the New Testament?* Do you see this issue as an agree-to-disagree issue between Christians? How important is it and why?* Does Phoebe being a letter carrier necessarily mean that she is teaching authoritatively? Isn't Paul the true authority, and she is simply representing him?* In 1Tim 3:1 Paul says “if anyone desires to be an elder” if he meant only men, why use the Greek word “tis” and not a more descriptive word for male?* Is it possible to be a mutualist at home but a purely symbolic complementarian in the church on the basis that bishops are representatives of the apostles?* Elder-exclusive complementarianism is the only form that makes any sense to me, Biblically. What arguments, if any, do you see for stricter forms?* Does "husband of one wife" in 1 Tim. 3.2;3.12 have to be gender exclusive? Could it be translated as some have suggested as a "one-man" woman?* Comps: women cant teach/exercise auth. over men because 1 Tim 2.But Priscilla teaching Apollos is to a degree a man submitting to a woman’s teaching. How you understand this?* In Gen 3 God punished females with subjection to their husbands due to Eve's sin. Is Paul extrapolating this to church leadership positions as well in 1 Tim 2?* Do we need to read primogeniture into Genesis in order to be faithfully exegeting Genesis 2?* With so many Hapax Legomena in 1 Timothy, and 8 alone in 1 Timothy 2, why is it so often quoted as “the clearest passage on women” in the New Testament?* Does Gen. 3:15 indicate that sexism is from Satan, ie., that the enemy specifically targets women? If so, what are the implications for the church/Christians?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Okay, so Heather wants to know, Holda interpreted Scripture for men and was sanctioned by God as a prophet to do so. Does that role for women change in the New Testament? So if you're not familiar with these passages, Holda is a female prophet that occurs in 2 Kings 22 verses 14 to 20, and then you have the parallel passage and second Chronicles 34, 22 to 28. So Josiah finds the book of the law, reads it, wants to understand it better. So he sends a delegation of five pretty prestigious men, Hilkiah, Ahikam, Akhbor, prestigious men, Hilkiah, Ahikam, Akhbor, Shafan, Asiah, I mean, there's, yeah, some of these names are hard to pronounce. But if you do a little research on the five men

that Josiah sent to Huldah, it's a pretty prestigious delegation. You know, what's interesting is Jeremiah is a prophet around this time and he's in Jerusalem. I mean, at least that's where he was stationed. It's curious that Josiah sends to Holda and not Jeremiah. We don't know why. There's nothing in the text that says why he went to Holda and not Jeremiah. We probably shouldn't read too much into that. Also, I don't know, it'd palace. And he's like, Oh, I'm going to go to the palace. And he's like, Oh, I'm going to go to the palace.

And he's like, Oh, I'm going to go to the palace. And he's like, Oh, I'm going to go to the palace. And he's like, Oh, I'm going to go to the palace. And he's like, Oh, I'm going to go to the palace. And he's like, Oh, I'm going to go to the palace. And he's like, Oh, I'm going to go to the palace. And he's like, Oh, I'm going to go to the palace. And he's like, Oh, I'm going to go to the palace.

And he's like, Oh, I'm going to go to the palace. And he's like, Oh, I'm going to go to the palace. And he's like one of those curious details that sometimes go overlooked. So he sends the holda, she then prophesies, she says, this is what the Lord, the God of Israel says, tell the man who sent me, sent you to me, this is what the Lord says, I am going to bring disaster on this place and its people according to everything written in the book, the book that the king of Judah has read. Now according to your question here, you know, you said, hold that interpreted scripture for men. Technically, she's not interpreting scripture. This is something that Cumberland

Tarians make a big deal out of. They say she's not interpreting scripture. She's not, she's simply, she's like almost, you can almost think like a passive mouthpiece for the divine word. God speaks to her and she can only say and only say exactly what God has revealed to her. She's not offering any sort of authoritative interpretation of God's word. She's simply mediating God's revelation to God's people. Some people also point out that this was a public or a private prophecy, not a public prophecy.

I think that distinction, I don't know, I'm not too impressed with that distinction. For one, you see, I mean, you see, just to take a wider lens, I mean, a lot of prophecies in the old Testament would be considered private. They're not announced over a mass group of people. Also, I mean, how private is it? There's, there's five pretty, you know, prominent men in, in Judah that go to her. And her word is also designed to be relayed to the people. Like it's ultimately explaining God's word to God's people. Like, sorry, explaining the Book of the Law, like the meaning of the Book of the Law to God's people. So I don't think the author here or even the five delegates

were too concerned to make sure to keep this private what she's saying, because if it's public then she's violating some sort of male headship. I just don't see those concerns in the text. How private is it? Five prominent men? That would almost be like, what if you had an elder meeting or sorry, if you had a meeting of five prominent men to go hear from a female prophet? Should we make anything out of that? Is that saying anything about male-female relations? So, to your question, technically,

Holden is not interpreting scripture. Whether that matters for the debate about women and leadership or women teaching. That's another conversation. But she's not interpreting it. Hey friends, I hope you enjoyed this portion of the Patreon Only Q&A podcast. If you'd like to listen to the full-length episode and receive other bonus content like monthly podcasts, opportunities to ask questions, access to first drafts of my research and monthly Zoom chats and more, then please head over to patreon.com forward slash theology in the raw to join theology in the raw's Patreon community. That's patreon.com forward slash theology in the raw. This show is part of the Converge Podcast Network.